Is LinkedIn the new Facebook?

My patience is wearing thin.  I saw a stat recently that showed that Linkedin is used by less than 1% of the users of Facebook.  On the surface, not so surprising; however, based on the trends I am seeing on LinkedIn there’s a lot of business people who need to get a Facebook account. And quick.

I’m sick and tired of your word games and number puzzles so difficult they wouldn’t challenge a nine year old.   I don’t want to see your selfie with Trump and I don’t want to hear about or see your cat.   LinkedIn is losing decorum as a place where professionals mingle with their colleagues and network.  It can be an excellent place to learn, to expand your network and to build your career but it’s not Facebook.  Yet more and more users seem to think everyone is interested in their cat.  It has got to stop.

I’ve curated my network.  I’ve worked at making sure I have something – often a lot – in common with the people I am connected to.  I want to learn from them, understand how I can help them and know whether they are looking for something new.   I want to be able to reach out to this group with my own questions and needs – especially now as I am looking for my own new role.   Increasingly, I find myself blocking anyone who is ‘Facebooking’ my Linkedin.  It’s distracting and it’s got to stop.  You wouldn’t place a water cooler in your office.  Leave it in the cafeteria (Facebook) where it belongs.

It may be possible that LinkedIn has become so big we are starting to sense its apotheosis.  The point at which utility is beginning to slow or decline due to the sheer size and inherent conflict within the audience and user base.  How online social networks die is a subject so new there’s few examples (myspace), but there does seem to be some truth to the idea that there’s an natural evolution to social networks that produce, at some point, a gradual and inevitable decline in utility.  I’d wager it is the first movers who reach this conclusion soonest.



Michael Cairns has served as CEO and President of several technology and content-centric business supporting global media publishers, retailers and service providers. He can be reached at michael.cairns@outlook.com and is interested in discussing executive management and/or board and advisory positions. He blogs at personanondata.com

Predictions 2011: The Growth of Intimacy (Revisited)

I am re-posting these in advance of thinking about 2012 but in re-reading the post I could almost stand pat on this effort for 2012.  This was originally posted on Jan 3, 2011.



Things might have been worse: As 2009 came to a close, there wasn’t a lot of optimism about 2010 yet; as the year unfolded, things were neither worse nor better than they had been. And now, there is even some excitement spurred on by the launch of the iPad and the rapid growth of eBook sales. Certainly any analyst, technology company or consultant publicizing his or her [proprietary] forecast of eBook and eReader sales for the next decade was almost guaranteed to gain some attention, especially as each successive forecast sought to outdo the prior reports.

Encouraged by the boosterism, many pundits think this is ether the end of book publishers or a new dawn. I don’t think it’s either, but the transition from print to electronic could mimic the transition music made from vinyl to disc which stuffed record company profits in the short term (only to entirely undercut the industry for the long). It is too early to tell how book publishing will survive this transition, but it is entirely possible that we will look back on these ‘transition’ years as ones in which publishers missed an opportunity to connect directly with their readers, having limited their ‘opportunity’ merely to replicating the book experience on the screen.

Change and progress is glacial in the book industry while, all around the industry media markets and products advance at break-neck pace. Evidence of massive and rapid change surrounds the publishing industry: This time last year, tablet computers were utilitarian business equipment; now, with the iPad, they are status symbols and, for millions, a gateway page to life online. In 2009, few televisions were web enabled but this year this is a standard feature opening up the web for living room leisure activity on a big screen. Content produced by publishers is now showcased in these channels and on these devices, yet book publishers continue to be bit players in the evolution of eContent and indications are this is unlikely to change appreciably in the future.

Some of the macro changes I mentioned last year continue to roll out into the mainstream, such as the migration toward subscription models for education content and trade reference, collaborative content and data sharing in academic publishing and an adoption of the rent vs. buy model for content. And while none overtook the business in any wholesale manner, all continued to grow in significance during 2010 as they will in 2011.

The Growth of Intimacy

In 1961, Newton Minow (newly installed as Federal Communications Commissioner) made a famous speech to the National Association of Broadcasters in which he described television programming as a ‘vast wasteland’ and he suggested those in attendance watch a day of television where,

You will see a procession of game shows, violence, audience-participation shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western badmen, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials--many screaming, cajoling and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you will see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few.

The web may be all of this in spades but, increasingly, the web user is demanding guidance and intermediaries who will then aid in their selection of appropriate and meaningful content. As I’ve discussed before, curation will become a marketable skill set and audience building around specific interests and specialties will be increasingly valued by content users. Just as publishers may have purchased publishing companies with defined title lists in years past, they may now consider purchasing “communities of interest” (and their associated apps and Facebook pages, etc.) to which they can market content/products. These communities may become the ‘imprints” of tomorrow with defined – even built in – product development, marketing and selling channels.

The growth of intimacy assumes that users will seek closer relationships with their core community of friends, workers or communities of interest in order to make decisions about the content they access, the products they use and the entertainment decisions they make. Book publishers, retailers and authors will need to understand how to actively participate in these communities without ‘marketing’ or ‘selling’ to them. Facebook is obviously the largest social community but within Facebook, there are a myriad of smaller ‘communities’ and, within these communities, the web becomes highly personal. The relationships among the participants becomes ‘intimate’ in the sense that the participants share knowledge, information, even personal details that in a traditional selling or marketing environment would never be breeched by the vendor. The dynamic of selling becomes vastly different in this context and publishers must find a way to understand these new communities, the influencers that dictate behavior and the motivations that contribute to selling products (and services potentially).

This is the next level of social networking: It isn’t enough to have a Facebook page or a Twitter account. Authors and publishers need to engage deeply where it matters in order to build awareness, build their brand (if necessary) and establish selling channels. In the case of Facebook, the company already has a vast amount of book-related information broadly collected from their community and undoubtedly the sales volume that results from the discussions on Facebook is large. Most importantly for vendors, the ‘conversion’ rate from an ‘intimate’ recommendation to purchase is likely to be far higher than from any other source or marketing activity. Finding and understanding the applicable nexus within these communities that delivers the widest possible ‘conversion’ rate will be critical if publishers are to participate in the growth of intimacy.

While publishers may think the ‘growth of intimacy’ will have more relevance to trade publishing, this may not be the case. As LexisNexis and some other professional publishers have proven that a social strategy that encourages users to act as curators for other users has significant value in building and supporting the publisher value proposition and brand. I see this evolving in education as publishers encourage academics and students to participate in social networks focused on specific topics and content. But a word of caution: Building a social network simply to facilitate the sale of your content or textbooks will never work. A critical aspect of Facebook is that it is vendor agnostic and thus provides the latitude for the community to come up with the right solution or product.

With reference to Minow, it won’t be the ‘broadcasters’ that ‘[could] do better’ as he suggested, but it will be the consumer that will find a way to get to the content they value using their web of ‘intimate’ relationships. Curators (or docents) will become critical for users in this discovery process and, if publishers aren’t connected to this network a meaningful way, they will be consigned to the vast wasteland of skateboarding dogs and porn.

The growth of intimacy will be a recurring theme for all content producers over the coming years and addressing the various aspects of this trend may result in important changes in the way publishers develop and market their products.

Here are some additional trends to watch for over the next 12-24mths:

• Prices for dedicated eReaders will fall to $30-50 and will increasingly be used as “fee-with-purchase” subscription promotions with newspapers and magazine subscriptions or combinations thereof.
  
• That newspapers will be moving toward a paid subscriber model is rapidly becoming old news (with the NYTimes expected to launch their service in January); however, to raise their value proposition, newspapers will be more interested in limited content syndication partnerships that lower the number of outlets with access to specific content, thus raising the exclusivity for the content and the value proposition for consumers. Rather than the same story appearing in hundreds of outlets, consumers will be looking for exclusive insights, analysis and commentary that can’t be found elsewhere. (Again, a ‘curation’ theme going on here).
  
• Tentatively, ranking “best social sites” will attempt to do the same thing that bestseller lists do in reflecting interest and popularity. The parameters will be unclear (or experimental) initially but this data – organized as a ranking – will become a valid measurement of commercial success and reader interests in the same way that bestseller lists do today.
  
• Print will increasingly be diminished by publishers - not directly because of electronic versions, but by their dismissive attitude to the quality of paper and bindings. Shoddy quality will serve to undermine value as paper rapidly yellows, bindings split and pages fall out.
  
• The popularity of eBooks and eContent will also chip away at the Byzantine (or British Empire- like) organization of many international publishing companies, which effectively splits rights by country and region rather than by language. We will start to see international publishing companies completely rethink the ‘local office’ formula where in different editions with different pricing, layouts, covers, release dates, etc. are produced by local staffing. Instead, publishers will begin to dismantle these operations and replace them with ‘centers of excellence’ where specific offices prove their expertise in specific functional or content areas and provide these services to the rest of the worldwide publishing operations. Direct customer-focused staff will remain but the duplication of functions – driven primarily by the content normalization that eContent imposes – will result in the elimination of functions across the global enterprise. Publishing companies will become stronger as a result, since they will be able to aggregate expertise in specific areas and distribute it broadly across their operations.
  
• International ownership of publishing companies is par for the course but we haven’t seen entities from China, India or the Arab world make a material impact on English language publishing. That will change as these markets mature and local investors determine they needn’t be simply buyers of English language materials but they could own the producers of this content as well. Most of these markets are still untapped: the market for English language content continues to grow and the supply of content locally produced and distributed internationally is still in its infancy. There are over 5mm college graduates in China each year versus less than 2mm in the US. This represents a vast market opportunity for all types of content and it is more than possible that a Chinese investor will buy a large English language publisher to address both supply and demand in this market. The same scenario could be true of the Indian and Arab markets. Watch for a big news takeover during 2011.

Lastly in sports: Last year I predicted that Manchester United would win the Premier League title over Arsenal but, in fact, United lost by a point to Chelsea. The point was effectively lost in a late season loss to Chelsea but, this year, Chelsea look well out of it. So again I predict United will win the title over Arsenal. I also predicted that England would win the Ashes series in Melbourne which they did last Tuesday. Hooray!

Thanks for your support and I hope your 2011 is better than 2010.


Related:

Predictions 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007

Where Am I? LinkedIn, Twitter, Flickr, Google+, All of the above and more.

Networks are now so obvious. In the long ago past – about 1997 – we carried our networks around in our heads, diaries and phone books or club memberships. Sometimes other people may have had a better idea of our networks than we did – like your wife, parents or secretary, but that’s no longer the case.

I’m still understanding Google+ and not because it is so complicated but because I wonder at my investment. I jumped on LinkedIN and Twitter quite early on because, in both cases, I saw immediate personal utility. The ‘network’ aspect offered an interesting side benefit. In the case of twitter, while I enjoy my use of the service, which I would describe as a cross between delicious tagging and news broadcasting, I remain dissatisfied that I only have limited control over my networks. In contrast, other networks, in particular Facebook, have been failures for me perhaps because I am either uneasy mingling my networks or haven’t found a utility that solves a problem (at least for me). What is clear to me, is that investing in the application is critical to maximize any benefit and, this is where my problem presents itself. How many of these networks can you maintain properly without becoming dissatisfied, frustrated or under-whelmed? And underwhelming to others?

One of the odd things about Google+ has been the amount of people who have added me to their circles when I have no idea who they are. Some of this may have to do with the pseudonym issue: On other networks such as twitter they might use a handle other than their real name. What is the etiquette here? Am I supposed to add all of these people? At least with LinkedIn you have an ability to ask the person where they know you from before you add them to your network. Maybe I should have a circle tagged “anonymous” or “unknown”. Some, perhaps many of these ‘contacts’ may be readers of this blog which has a wide distribution via RSS. Unfortunately, I have no insight into my RSS population other than a subscriber number and the knowledge the number increases every week. I really wish I knew who these people were.

Recently, I went through the exercise of matching my outlook contacts, LinkedIN, twitter and Flickr networks. It was a curious exercise. I have approximately 2,000 contacts in my outlook address book. About 50% of these were not found/matched in LinkedIn. This was particularly surprising to me since both contact lists are ostensibly ‘business’ related and therefore inherently linked. In my small use case, the exercise may also indicate that LinkedIn could have a lot of upside. Of the matches in twitter, I could only find about 20% of my contacts had twitter accounts. In the case of Flickr – which I use a lot – of my 2,000 outlook contacts less than 20 had Flickr accounts and in most of these cases the accounts were basically dormant. In the case of the latter two networks, it is likely that many people are not using their business email to register with all networks. This complicates an exercise like the one I went through. LinkedIn has tried to address this by allowing more than one email address; however, I don’t see this as an effective mechanism. (It works functionally but not in a practical sense for the users).

Which brings me back to Google+. There are some features of the service which will be useful but I will need to invest time to understand and make use of it. In the meantime, I continue to manage my other networks as best as I can. Please join me but don’t be shy about introducing yourself.

Here are my networks:

LinkedIN

Twitter

Flickr

Blogger

Google+

I have no idea what to do with Tumblr.

CCC Podcast: Putting the ‘Social’ in Media

Web 2.0 brought a more interactive relationship between creating and consuming content than ever seen before. That interaction is shaping our lives and changing our media in sometimes fascinating, and sometimes threatening ways.

Alexandra Samuel joins Chris Kenneally to talk about the economics and the ecology of social media. She’s the Director of the Social + Interactive Media Centre at Emily Carr University of Art + Design in Vancouver, and a blogger for Oprah.com and the Harvard Business Review. She shares research on the future form of the e-book, as well as her thoughts on culture as a community rather than a personal asset.

Listen here.

Completely Novel Launches Author Blog Awards

Book social site Completely Novel is launching an Author Blog Award effort to both reward great author websites and raise awareness of as many sites as possible. The company tells me their aim is to highlight to readers the great content that you can find in author blogs and microblogs and to reward authors who engage with their readers online and ecourage others to do the same.
All the blogs and microblogs that are nominated and shortlisted for the awards will get strong exposure from the competition and raise the profile of the authors behind them.

From their website:

The aim of the Author Blog Awards There are over 10,000 published and self-published authors blogging to readers, writers and industry professionals. Despite huge loyal followings and a remarkable wealth of new content, many readers remain unaware of these blogs. The Author Blog Awards is brought to you by CompletelyNovel and aims to honour the best blogs by both published and unpublished writers. They will recognise the writers who use their blogs to connect with readers in the most imaginative, engaging and inspiring ways. At the same time we hope to attract new audiences to these blogs and help readers find out more about the authors they love…and new authors too.

A Digital Concierge - Repost

Friday again which means I repost something from the archive and since I mentioned this in my panel at dbw I thought it reasonable to repost. It was originally from May 21, 2009.

Authors, writers, illustrators, photographers, etc all need to produce content for publishers but doing so in a world increasingly dominated by technology becomes a challenge. The more technology is interwoven into the creation and leverage of content, the more it becomes clear that pro-actively managing the intersection between content creator and technology represents an imperative for publishers. Publishers want their contributors to focus on content creation not the help desk. As functional responsibilities change within publishing houses, we will begin to see the morphing of the roles of editorial, marketing and promotions assistants into something akin to a ‘digital concierge’

Functional responsibilities are changing within a publishing house not least because the publishing process becomes less linear. It will no-longer be typical that a book ‘commissioned’ or ‘acquired’ sits proudly at the front end of a long sequential set of steps that ultimately lands the book on a shelf somewhere. In the new model, a book may be the last item produced after what may look from today’s perspective like a meandering route to publication. Truth is, there may not be ‘a model’ as publishers become more attuned to how consumers want to interact with content and as they experiment. Finding and engaging with an audience becomes both fractured and expansive and options to interact can seem at odds: facebook versus Myspace or twitter versus friendfeed, and a publisher is unlikely to want their ‘investment’ (i.e. The Author) to be distracted by those considerations. Not only will publishers build these relationships on their authors’ behalf, they will see doing so as an additional content creation opportunity. The ‘traditional book’ may reside at the center of additional supporting material from on-line chat to Powerpoint webinars to audio and video interviews. Of course, the book may also be a secondary rather than primary outcome of one of these publisher/author social communities.

Social networking is a catch-all phrase that can describe many things, but typically we use it to explain the concept of reaching customers via the web; whether the consumer takes specific action – commenting or emailing – thereby involving them with the content, or the creator (author and publisher) pushes interaction using tools like facebook, twitter and myspace. This can all be overwhelming to an author and, left to their own devices, they are likely to be unsuccessful; hence, the concept of a digital concierge.

The job of digital concierge grows in significance as more and more material is introduced to the market via the web. As mentioned above, the web community around an author almost becomes their studio where new material is introduced, discussed and ‘published’. The author will require a digital concierge who will marry and blend the appropriate technology tools so they are not a distraction to the content producer and they compliment the experience of the consumer. There is much to ponder here as trade book content moves to the web and the role of the publisher changes. While the job description for the digital concierge may not be written yet, I see this position as potentially critical to the successful migration from a trade print world to one dominated by social communities.

Body Double Twits

Reading the twitter stream yesterday from BISG's Making Information Pay (#mip) made me anxious. I've spoken before at many conferences but things are different now. With heads bowed, tapping away there is out there a phalanx of twittering critics passing immediate judgement on any presenter. Well, maybe that's what an 'audience' is and like a school of fish they can suddenly turn unexpectedly from positive and engaged to "WTF am I doing here." Even today many speakers are probably happily unaware of the twittering audience phenomena, like Marcus Leaver (President, Sterling) who, in an otherwise interesting and engaging performance yesterday, happened to mention that he tried Twitter, didn't like it and some how ended up with a Twitter "body double". That's not playing fair.

Many people will know Mike Hyatt (CEO, Thomas Nelson) is an avid social network user. Why? Because he sees social networking as an important aspect of his job as CEO, and not just to spout off whimsically about this and that but to actively and meaningfully engage both his employees and customers. There would be no chance he would engage a body double twit. Mike often plays first line customer service rep on Twitter which is where his activity is significant. If he sees an item having to do with TN he will step in directly and engage with the person or persons who are either seeking help or complaining about something. A body double CEO can never do the same thing in the same way.

Played for laughs, Leaver went even further down the 'we're getting it wrong in social networking' road by telling us that the guy twit responsible for twittering on all things pregnancy - for their Good Expectations titles - recently got a response from someone that read, "I'm having Braxton Hicks contractions right now, what do I do?" It was amusing, but am I laughing because I'm imagining the helplessness of the twit or because I can't believe they've got this so wrong? If you are going to bother using social networking, be like Mike and make it real.

Library of Congress goes Social Networking

From an Library of Congress press release:

The Library of Congress will begin sharing content from its vast video and audio collections on the YouTube and Apple iTunes web services as part of a continuing initiative to make its incomparable treasures more widely accessible to a broad audience. The new Library of Congress channels on each of the popular services will launch within the next few weeks.

New channels on the video and podcasting services will be devoted to Library content, including 100-year-old films from the Thomas Edison studio, book talks with contemporary authors, early industrial films from Westinghouse factories, first-person audio accounts of life in slavery, and inside looks into the Library's fascinating holdings, including the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence and the contents of Lincoln's pockets on the night of his assassination.

"The Library of Congress launched the first U.S. agency-wide blog two years ago and continued its pioneering social-media role with initiatives such as the immensely successful Flickr pilot project," said Librarian of Congress James H. Billington. "We have long seen the value of such interaction with the public to help achieve our missions, and these agreements remove many of the impediments to making our unparalleled content more useful to many more people."

The General Services Administration today also announced agreements with Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and blip.tv that will allow other federal agencies to participate in new media while meeting legal requirements and the unique needs of government. GSA plans to negotiate agreements with other providers, and the Library will explore these new media services when they are appropriate to its mission and as resources permit.

Skittles

Skittles have been all the rage on Twitter the past day or so since the company relaunched their website by merging social media content from Wikipedia, Youtube, twitter, flickr and other sites. Some more savy web users have been able to cobble together a version of this concept by tying together sites like linkedin, slideshare, blogger, flickr, etc to establish a web profile or presence (and all for free without the expense of web development or hosting); however, this commercial extention appears to be unique. Whether unique or not this effort has tapped into the phenomenon of web-based social interaction to such an extent that twitter users were blaming skittles for the service disruptions on twitter yesterday.

Visit www.skittles.com and here is a take from the LA TImes:

The updated website is little more than a small overlay that links to user-submitted information about the candy on various social media sites: photos of candy wrappers on Flickr, videos from the company's YouTube channel, the Facebook fan page, its Wikipedia entry and real-time conversation on Twitter.

Upon loading Skittles.com, the visitor is asked to enter a date of birth as an agreement to the no-holds-barred information flow. A Twitter search for "skittles" is the default landing page, displayed in the background.

Putting the micro-blogging website at the forefront has apparently paid off. "Skittles" has topped Twitter's list of trending topics since last night.

Lonely Hearts and The London Review of Books

The juxtaposition of these two items was too much to ignore. I had just found out McCartney will be on Colbert on Wednesday night (so watch if Steven gets to duet) when I saw this headline on the Guardian: Lonely Hearts Club Band. The two items having nothing to do with each other but they fall together nicely.

The Guardian takes a poetic look at the personal ads in the London Review of Books and some of these ads are indeed hilarious. It does look like something of a sport to out humor the other guy/girl. Something like evolutionary humor...

Here is an excerpt:

The internet generation of daters hasn't abandoned personal ads. Rather, lonely heart sections have raised their game. Advertisers have evolved the formulaic WTLM/GSOH standard of old into clever haikus of longing and desire. No longer the realm of (whisper it) losers, there is a sophistication to the modern day personal ad that is both fascinating and, for those who are compelled to respond, frequently thrilling.

If clumsy, unfeeling lust is your bag, write to the ad above. Otherwise write to me, mid-forties M with boy next door looks, man from U.N.C.L.E. charm, and Fresh Prince of Bel Air casual insouciance. Wikky wikky wick yo. Box no. 2851.

You're a brunette, 6', long legs, 25-30, intelligent, articulate and drop dead gorgeous. I, on the other hand, have the looks of Herve Villechaize and an odour of wheat. No returns and no refunds at box no. 3321.

There are many more like those...

Book Army From Harpercollins

Looks like Harpercollins UK are set to announce a book social networking site similar to Goodreads.com and librarything.com. Named BookArmy, users will be able to build a library of books using ISBNs, tag them and interact socially (online) with other book lovers. Importantly, the site is not restricting the participation to books published by Harpercollins.

In a post I wrote about branding several weeks ago, I wondered who the first major publisher would be to incorporate a books in print database on to their site and it looks like HC UK will be the one. (In comments to that post some did point out Bloomsbury tried this approach years ago).

No doubt there will be some questioning why we need another book oriented social network when we have shelfari, goodreads and librarything. Certainly a valid question, but I doubt the goodreads people wondered if they could complete with librarything when they got started and here they are only a few years later with bigger traffic. There is no reason to believe that HC will not appeal to a new segment - or steal some of the users from the incumbents. I hope they will be able to instill in the BookArmy brand something that is unique and unifying because if the site comes across as HC corporate in disguise it is unlikely to be successful. I think the HC people are smart enough to realize that.

Harpercollins is very actively trying new things online. There US site is vibrant and full of experimentation. Some have argued that they don't go far enough in allowing access to their content but the point is they are not adverse to experimentation. The UK and the US online exercises do seem to be different in approach. It is not that they are uncoordinated but their respective approaches seem different. In the UK BookArmy and Authonomy.com are examples where they have have taken the potential of the web to build community just a bit farther than the US office is doing.

What could be most interesting about this is how successful HC will be in promoting the site across the other NewsCorp sites particularly Myspace. If they are able to gain traction there then we could really begin to see a significant player in book social networking. Perhaps even a transaction site that could become very significant given the concentration of users around the Myspace brand. On the other hand, your typical Myspace user may not be the perfect book reader and therein lies the challenge. Taking the battle directly to the group less interested in reading could be just the thing that builds some renewed interest in published content.*

I hope to have more on this when the site launches next week.


* I am not saying the typical Myspace user doesn't read: We need them to read books in quantity!

Facebook: Who's Your Friend?

A few weeks ago I did some house cleaning. I looked over both my Facebook friends and Linked contacts and deleted many. Don't worry it wasn't personal, but while the deletions in Linkedin were relatively minor I reduced my Facebook friends by more than half. I am not completely sure I was brutal enough.

Most of those I deleted were also Linkedin contacts which is sort of the point. I am not so sure I want my business associates to know I was listening to The Sex Pistols yesterday or someone from high school noted some particularly debauched evening back in 1980 on my 'wall'. My brother might be tempted to say something even worse and as a consequence the whole mystique would be ruined. I jest somewhat.

I see two separate constellations of friends and business associates and it is not that they are always mutually exclusive but for me I believe that any overlap is an exception rather than the rule. Of the two social networks I am more interested in Linkedin. I have found Facebook to be useful in finding old friends from high school (mainly) and thus placate my curiosity but I remain skeptical that it will ever be a true communication platform for me. I may be different - and many have said so - but I also see in Facebook the potential to be a huge time drain. And I have more interesting things to do. From a professional perspective, it is important to maintain awareness and contact with social networks like Facebook which is why I won't shut it down. But I do get tired of the "cocktails" and other pointless prods.

Linkedin on the other hand is useful although I think it is still a blunt tool. Searching for 'publishing consultant' returns way too many to be useful and I often wonder how my profile has come up in any search. The site needs more effective taxonomy/ontology but also more opportunities to create micro-sites around either industry or competence (or both). The 'group' function doesn't seem to work so well and these seem to be more ad-hoc than particularly useful.

One other thing in my experience with respect to both networks is the level of penetration. In the case of Linkedin I still have more than 40% of my contacts who do not have a profile or don't appear to actively use the site. Ignoring my house-cleaning in Facebook, I would estimate that could be more than 5x as many friends I could add if they had a Facebook page. My survey of one seems to tell me that in both cases they can still grow their networks by significant amounts regardless of their aggressive growth paths.

Join me on linkedin (or facebook if you dare). Michael.Cairns @ infomediapartners.com.

Universal Mccann Review of Social Networking Trends

Universal Mccann International Social Media Research Wave 3

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: socialmedia research)

Social Recommendations

In Business Week, author Sarah Lacy has some suggestions for publishers on how to develop, market and sell books by taking advantage of Web 2.0 opportunities. This is only one of her five suggestions:

Create stars—don't just exploit existing ones.When an author is established, publishers have to do less to make a book sell. So bidding wars start. As a result, even some best-sellers aren't very profitable. Instead, publishers should take a page from the handbook of Gawker founder Nick Denton and create stars. Find micro-celebs with a voice, talent, a niche base of readers, and most important—enthusiasm. Then leverage the publisher's brand (and the techniques I advocate, of course) to blow them out. Require as part of the contract that the author blog, speak on panels, attend events. Give them incentives for delivering—say, though Web traffic of the number of followers they amass on Twitter. Sure, publishers would have to spend more on promotion. But because they're spending less on an advance—say, $50,000 for a lesser-known writer than the hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) they'd spend on a star—they can afford the bigger promotional budget. "It's taken some time for publishers to recognize that a successful site is as
strong a 'platform' as a magazine, newspaper, or TV gig," says Patrick Mulligan,
my editor at Gotham.

Twitter

Mike Hyatt, CEO of Thomas Nelson has a great how to for setting up and using Twitter. For those of you like me this is the guide to use. Mike's philosophy on social networking is you have to use it and experience it in order to pontificate on it. Obviously, understanding all social media tools is also critical to understanding how customer may/could/do interact with your content.

Link Here.

And while you are there, check out his "what I have learned in four years of blogging"

SharedBook And BigOven

SharedBook (which I have featured before) has struck a deal with BigOven to use the SharedBook api so that BigOven users can create their own custom cookbooks. Any registered user can both use their own recipes by adding them to the BigOven database and use any of the 160,000+ recipes already in the database. Long time users of BigOven will find this tool immediately useful since they will be able to choose from their favorites list and from lists of items they have searched specifically for in the past.

The recipes in the database range from Aunt Millie's Down Town Meat Loaf (I made that up) to recipes taken from magazines and added by users. The books can also be collaborative so in addition to creating your own best of title, a group of users can create a collaboratively generated cookbook and add their own commentary and dedications.

The finished version will be delivered looking like something you could buy in a store and it comes in two versions: A slipcased version and one that lies flat that is best for use in the kitchen.

More specifically from the press release, SharedBook notes the following:

Simply visit BigOven.com and type in anything you’d like to print a book about. Then, look on the right hand side of the search results for a “Print a Cookbook with these Recipes!” link, and that will take you right to the bridge page with the recipes queued up. You can then select which ones you would like to include and change the order.

Recipes Contributed by Any Member – visit a chef’s page and click on the “Recipes I’ve Posted” link to generate a search of all recipes that member has posted. Now, look on the search results page, right hand side, about halfway down the page. Click on the link “Print a Cookbook with these Recipes!”

Any Cooking Group – The BigOven Cookbook is an easy way for groups of friends and family to create cookbooks. Groups are free to create on BigOven.com. You can simply create a group on BigOven and join for free, post recipes to the site (at not charge), and add them to your cooking group and then, anyone can print a group cookbook at any time.

There is no question we will see more of these types of collaborative software tools enabling consumers to create their own personalized products using publishers (and others) content and adding their own material whether it be editorial, photos and probably embedded video and audio. SharedBook looks like they are making all the right moves and this deal comes on the heels of a recently announced deal with Random House.

Amazon: What Do We Do Next?

Someone emailed me today and asked what publishers should do in light of Amazon throwing their weight around and others posing threats to the industry.

My response,

Indeed, I agree that publishers don’t seem to be taking the threat seriously and I really don’t understand why. I really don’t know what the answer is (I wish I were that smart) but it should be the case that any interaction with Google, Amazon and Microsoft should be guarded. In addition, the publishers should be offering some type of counter policy – whether it is alternative options to access to their content (new pricing/subscription models, distribution/retail) – so that consumers have more options. For example, publishers have hesitated historically to mess with the retail channel and I recall in the early days of the internet there was a lot of discussion about publishers creating channel conflict with existing retailers if the publisher set up their own store front. In the past 10 years the retail channel has become far more concentrated and could become even more concentrated as more content becomes electronic.

Perhaps it is time for publishers to be more aggressive in becoming retailers as well as content producers. If so, it’s not as simple as setting up a store front that looks like a mini-version of the Amazon bookstore (obviously) since no one would switch. However, publishers do have the direct relationship with the author and can use this exclusivity to build a more robust presentation of the content. On Amazon you get the Buick version but on the Publisher site you get the Cadillac. None of the added or supplemental content would be made available elsewhere. What that extra content would be I don’t know. Maybe every author is twinned with an additional writer and site designer that builds/creates websites focused on the authors work but with far more expansive material about the works, process, background details, audio, video etc., any of which could be purchased by a consumer. This becomes the new marketing and promotions approach or the way to spend money that is traditionally allocated to print advertising, book tours and launch parties.

That’s a quick thought. Trade faces challenges. Education and Information are/have morphed into new beasts but it is less clear where trade will end up.

Later on in the day, I came across this news story about musicians and acts setting up their own social networking sites. The reasoning is simple: The artist has decided they don't have to have an intermediary between themselves and their fans. Their actions don't mean they forgo any of the other outlets such as Myspace or Facebook but they are understanding that they can insert themselves into the value chain at their choosing. Reuters:

"The thing that separates Thisis50 from MySpace is we control the e-mail database," says Chris "Broadway" Romero, director for new media at G-Unit Records, which handles Thisis50. "We can e-mail members if we want to." Thisis50 isn't meant to be a fan club, but rather a platform for 50 Cent to showcase his music and music he likes, and comment on news and user profile pages. Ludacris' WeMix.com, on the other hand, is more of a hub for aspiring artists to upload their music.

Publishers can do the same kind of thing to distinguish themselves and their authors in the minds of consumers while also establishing more balance in the relationship between producer and retailer. Change is certainly on the horizon but whether publishers move fast enough is the question.

Defections

Another big name author has followed the money and moved from his long term publisher. Richard Ford has moved from Knopf to Ecco after 17 years, and he follows Tom Wolfe who earlier in the year moved from FSG to Little Brown. Who can blame them? This is not a trend, as authors do move around periodically (and take their editors with them). It will have little impact on traditional publishing. The mid-market and specialty author is not suddenly going to be in a better competitive position vis-a-vis the publishing houses. What strikes me as curious, though, is that we haven't seen incursions by web companies such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Ebay into the original content business. Yet.

It seems so logical that one or a few of these companies will experiment in some way with branded authors. We all know the author brand is primary and we also know that some authors have become aggressive in expanding their brand - Patterson as the prime example. It may be inevitable that a major author(s) signs a three book deal with Google or Amazon. According to Publisher's Lunch, Wolfe received between $5mm and $7mm (these numbers from several sources) for his deal. It is a sad reflection on the publishing industry that these figures represent little more than gas money for the larger internet companies. Skills in book production, design, marketing and promotion, etc. are readily available and would not represent an impediment to success. It is really the expanded catalog of skills and expertise that an internet company could bring to bear that could be really interesting for authors and consumers.

Launching Major Author X via 'GooglePub' or similar would transcend the traditional publishing model and, perhaps, return it to something more like the publishing of the late 18oos where serialization (blogging) and direct reader involvement (social networking) were fundamental elements of trade publishing. (Remember Doyle trying to kill off Holmes, resulting in near riots from readers?) One of the most interesting aspects of the Radiohead experiment was that they finished their album only two weeks before it was available for download. In the world of publishing, the length of time from finished manuscript to bookstore can be years. Not only would consumer access be much faster in a 'GooglePub' world but the engagement with the author and the authors' work could be far more intense (and positive) for both author and reader.

Imagine the author maintaining an ongoing rapport with readers as the book is written. The author blogs about the process, posts excerpts, background material relevant to the story, and plot and character notes. The author publishes finished excerpts (ie. serialization), as development continues. Perhaps derivative titles or sequels are also initiated. Audio, Podcasts and video is made available. At the launch of the title, the book will have been exposed to millions of readers - perhaps all of the title has been published in parts or not - but the excitement will be significant. During this time, site traffic will also have grown and perhaps an advertising revenue share for the author will also augment their annual guarantees.

As in the Radiohead example, a physical version will be produced but, even here, the model could change. Perhaps 'GooglePub' strikes separate deals with B&N, Borders or others who produce their own versions of the titles by selecting from the wealth of content available as a direct result of the content created during the process. Basically, the author and 'GooglePub' leave it up to the physical publisher to create the physical product and just take a (painless) cut of revenues.

Publishers can't compete with this model. By the same token, the process could give rise to a new caste of publishing staffers who are familiar with the web-publishing model, social networking and engagement and who become required assets as authors migrate their brands to the internet. An interesting scenario: How prepared are large trade houses if their top-ten branded authors defect to 'GooglePub'?

Livemocha in NYTimes

I have commented on the language learning provider Livemocha and they were profiled in the NY Times over the weekend:

LiveMocha introduced its Web site in late September 2007, said Shirish Nadkarni,
chief executive of the company, which is based in Bellevue, Wash. Since then, he said, about 200,000 users from more than 200 countries have joined. “It’s a community of like-minded learners who can leverage their native language proficiency to help one another,” he said. The name “LiveMocha” is meant to evoke the relaxed atmosphere of a coffee shop. The site is still in beta, or testing, phase, Mr. Nadkarni said. Advertising will soon be added, as well as charges for some premium content and services.

The company recently closed on $6mm in additional funding.

LiveMocha Update

I wrote recently on a social networking approach to language learning which I thought we quite innovative. LiveMocha, the site I looked at had launched at an innovators conference in September last year and the company just announced they have received over $5mm in equity funding to expand the business. Noted in the announcement is that the lead investor is Maverson which is the vc firm of Starbucks founder Howard Schultz.

Seattle Post

Prior Post

(I am personally interested in this due to my work at Berlitz many years ago).